Return of the Canadian Atheist

It's fascinating to me how easily someone in one religion can find the fallacies and biases in another religion.

I think that what's fascinating...

You're razor sharp on your criticism of Islam here.

Yeah, but what I find fascinating, Jeff, is that you recognize that with other religions, but you don't do it with your own. Because I... That may be the case.

And there's that confirmation bias coming up again. This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host, from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

Opening the Return Conversation with the Canadian Atheist

All right, we are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your apologetic questions or to have discussions. We are live, and again, we're going to have with us the Canadian atheist. He returns. We got a lot of good feedback with him last week.

For those who didn't listen to last week's show, okay, you'll have to re-listen after this show. But he is a Canadian, so he may say a once in a while. We'll just translate that into English. And so, but I know that he and Anthony started a discussion at the end of last show.

So we're going to pick that up and continue that discussion today. And he's gotten a lot of good feedback on his show. He's got a podcast. And so he played it on his. And so we thought it'd be good to continue.

And maybe if he comes back again, Pastor Justin, we'll address more with him. But so that's what we got for you today. If we bring Anthony up, we probably see him doing his mail there. You know, he's, you know, you're not a small business owner anymore, Anthony.

You don't have to be always working, doing your mail and things like that. You know? I don't? No, you don't. So, and for folks who want to join, just go to appaljaxlive .com. If you want to join in the discussion, if you want to ask any questions of either Michael, the Canadian atheist or Justin, who is, Justin's very busy.

Look at Justin. Oh, I'm brushing up. Yeah. I'm reading there. Was that what do we believe? Yeah. What do we believe? I'm trying to figure out what it is. Yeah. Hey, I actually should play. I'd have to go on Facebook and find it.

But I don't know if you guys saw my Facebook that there was someone who is using my book. What do we believe for homeschooling? And they had their daughter reading chapter two on textual criticism. So that was kind of neat.

Yeah. So it's always neat when I have that. So we have someone from New Zealand listening in saying, good afternoon from New Zealand. Hey brother. So Billy, you got it. You got to find some churches willing to fly me out to New Zealand.

I want to go there. So find a church to have me speak there. That'd be really neat. Then we could actually meet each other. So we're going to bring Michael in. So Michael, welcome to another Apaljax Live.

Greetings and salutations from Canuckland. It's kind of interesting.

You know, it works out well. You and Pastor Justin are on the bottom of the screen with dueling t-shirts. We have battling t-shirts. Yeah. Battling t-shirts.

Michael, what does yours say? Says godless heathen. Okay. And Justin, yours says? God exists and he has spoken.

Just before we get going, actually, I wanted to just comment a little bit. I wish the record button would have been going much longer yesterday after Andrew and Anthony decided they had better things to do.

Justin and I probably spoke for, what, maybe 45 minutes? Yeah. Something like that. We had a great conversation. We decided we hated each other. It was just, we're ready to go fight. And then I found out that you guys all have guns.

And so I backed down.

No, actually we did. We had an incredibly good conversation. I want to definitely talk about that. Maybe next time or something. Sure. Actually, you guys should just bring it up for the show.

Yeah. Yeah. We could just sit in the background. I will give a programming note that some of the Facebook feeds are maybe having issue. And so there is a problem right now with Facebook and StreamYard.

I'll also mention this is a ministry of striving for eternity. I always forget to do that. That's bad because Anthony is a board member. He may punish me somehow. So if any of you guys want to check out any of the materials at strivingforeturning .org, we got a bunch of, we got a school, online school.

We have syllabuses there. We have some books. We have some online events that are there. We also have the podcast, which is the Christian Podcast Community. That is one of our ministries, 37 podcasts, I think it's up to now.

More to coming. We have, I think, one more that signed the contract and about four more on the way. So it's a growing community of Christian podcasters. And so I encourage you guys to check that out. And if you want, Justin, why don't you and Mike, Michael, go back to the discussion when Anthony and I, after the show kind of had left.

And yeah, well, I think we had just, you had just conceded that God doesn't exist.

And I think, yeah, I had, I had converted to Christianity.

So it was something just like that. Exactly like that.

Yeah, exactly like that. No, actually, we bounced around a fair bit. Yeah, we had a lot of different conversations, but it kind of, it kind of went down to the moral discussion, the moral argument. And to me, that's, you know, we started out having our conversation, Andrew and I, and I guess all of us, we're really having conversations based upon, you know, just evidences.

And I just want to make sure everybody can hear me well, as long as we're in there.

Yeah, John was just making a comment about, here, I'll put it up here. John's comment was just saying about the mics are working, but the mic, he's saying the mic's mic is pointing at his face, should have better sound.

I'm not quite sure what the, actually what you want to... Let's see, how we doing? Yeah, no, he's talking about Michael's mic.

Joe, in an earlier post, thought that Mike's mic was not picking up his sound, but his laptop was.

Yeah, not possible. I'm hooked up to an audio interface.

Okay, I can hear you just fine. I can hear you just fine. I can move things a little bit.

How's that? Is that a little bit better for everybody? And then he also wrote, Andrew, that something's up with the link, the StreamYard link. So for somebody who wants to come in like himself, he can't.

Well, Michael, I'm not getting in.

Yeah, I came in. Have you tried turning it off and turning it back on again?

Yeah, it always works. Or hit it on the right hand side really hard. That always fixes computers.

Yeah, okay, so this is totally off topic, but humorous, at least maybe to me. So I know some of you guys know that my background is computer science. So when I was in college, the most stressful time in college is usually final exam week.

That's when everyone is on my normal sleep hours, where they're staying up all night trying to study. And I used to love that week because everyone was up all night long, and it was just normal for me.

But it's super stressful in the computer lab back then when you didn't have personal computers, because everyone's trying to get on the computer to finish up their final projects. And so they had at the school, one of the computers was dead and wasn't working.

And I was given permission. I wish I had video of this because it would have been hilarious to see everyone else's face. But I was like pretending like I was typing for like 10, 20 minutes. And then I'm like banging the keyboard.

I start hitting the side of the terminal. And they eventually took out a mallet and just started beating the thing and destroyed it. And then I just got up, threw the mallet in my bag, got up and walked out, walked into the control room where we could see the faces of people.

And everyone was just like shocked. Yeah, yeah, no, it was never fixed. So Ted is watching from Sydney, Australia, another place I'd love to go. Absolutely. So all right, that's that's enough fooling around.

Let's get. Security scares me. It's like the place that everything is trying to kill you. Oh, yeah.

You know, he would get along well with Fred Butler. You know, Fred Butler believes that.

I still want to go there. I mean, like I said, like I said before, I keep snakes here. I've got four pythons around me right now. Snakes don't scare me. But, you know, when you have the most toxic ones in the world, all on this relatively small island, it's a little scary.

Relatively small. It's the size of the United States.

It's still smaller than Canada. New Jersey is relatively small compared to like almost anything. But I'm out of that state now.

OK, so I have a question. I don't know if, Justin, you and Michael are going to talk any more about your private conversation, but... Fire away. So why is today called the National Ask an Atheist a Question Day today?

Well, that's really good.

I didn't find out till four o 'clock this afternoon. I knew that at all. I have a question. Where did you see this, Anton? It gets tossed up all the time. People, basically, people just kind of save it on Facebook and they just kind of chuck it up whenever they feel like it.

I think there have been four this year so far. Like, it's not a hard and fast thing.

So we should create an Ask a Christian a Question Day. There you go. Absolutely. It might actually be good to see how many people can actually answer questions on both sides. That'd be more fun to see.

Yeah, that's a good idea. So, Anthony, that was, just to be clear, that was your question, why it's today. That was my question. That was your question. I have never heard this before. Like I said, I think it's just something that gets tossed out there.

It's at least the fourth one I've seen this year. But I didn't know about it till, like I said, the four o 'clock this afternoon. Okay, fair enough.

Why Truth Requires an Objective Standard

So, okay, we enjoyed our conversation last week. And I think we kind of want to pick it up where we left off. We were just starting to talk about science and whatnot. You know, one general question that I think a lot of people are probably thinking, maybe haven't asked this question yet, is this.

Why do you care? About what? Well, you're an atheist. You don't believe God exists. No, I believe God doesn't exist. Yeah, okay, so God doesn't exist. So, why do you care that other people do believe God exists?

Like, why do you have a show to speak against the God that you say doesn't exist?

Do you think it's important that people believe things that are true?

I do if we have a standard of truth. And that's the problem, right? And so, we would say that in a godless universe where it's... And this is where we picked up last week, right? In a godless universe where everything is just the result of random chemical reactions from the beginning, there is no objective way to label something right and wrong, true and false, right?

So, we mix, as Justin said last week, we mix baking soda and vinegar together. That's not right or wrong. It just is. It just mixes and we get a reaction. So, yeah, I certainly care about truth. I just don't understand you where it comes from.

So, now you're mixing me up with Justin. Thanks. Oh, now it's Anthony and Justin, no different? I thought Justin asked that last week. So...

It's because I'm the good looking. Yeah, I'd say that's objectively true.

Anthony, how do you define truth? Well, so, okay, again, this is the problem.

In order to speak about truth... I understand you're going to put an apologetic spin on almost everything, but that's a pretty straightforward question. I'm going to be a little less charitable this week than I was last week.

No, and that's fine.

We would love for you to be. So, we have to define truth from God, right? So, the only way you can define truth is the same way that... It's the only way that you can also have knowledge and know it for certain.

It must come from an omniscient source. One that is all knowing. One who is not only all knowing, but also is the source of truth. So, in our Christian worldview, we have both of those things. We have the ability to have knowledge known for certain, and we have the ability to have truth because God is the standard of truth.

And so, that is where we get truth from. Defining it, there's no better way to define it than by God himself. He's the standard of good. He is a standard of truth. And so, that's where we put it. It's on one of our axioms, right?

That's an axiom of ours.

And I have no problem with axioms. I think I've only ever come across a couple of people that said they don't have any axiom, axiom presupposition, whatever you want to call it. I've only come across a couple of people that have ever said they don't have any.

Which, frankly, I find bizarre. It's dishonest, yeah. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say it's dishonest because they may still be evaluating it. Like, for example, I kind of have a couple, and I'm still going through the...

I try to check myself every once in a while to see, I was like, okay, is this something also that I look at as an axiom? So, the ones that... So, you start with God exists, stuff like that, right? I start with reality is real and that my senses are reliable.

And I accept that I may have others. And I've actually had conversations with people that have said, well, you know, what about this, this, and that? So, yeah, you know what, actually, I may take that as a presupposition as well.

But the two that I start with is reality is real. And if you need to discuss that, I don't know how you get out of bed in the morning. And as far as our senses being reliable, it's the only way we interpret things, the world that we experience.

So, those are my starting points. And I think it's interesting that you said that, you know, you can't...

Mike, your mic went out. We don't... Oh, really? That's really weird. What's the last thing you heard me say?

I'm here and I'm fine. I don't hear your mic either. Okay, well, we're fine. Mike, I hear you. So... Oh, okay. We got Anthony this equipment that is like almost idiot proof. Hello, hello. He just, he can't even get that to work.

He probably hit a button.

Anthony, if you can hear me, you are audible. Tied on StreamYard.

I don't know if you can hear me, but I can't hear anything. So, what are you guys going to have to take over till we figure out what this is?

Okay. Justin, I'm going to let you... Justin, why don't you guys finish the conversation you had from last week? And then I'm going to put Anthony and I out.

Well, we kind of started to dance on this, Justin. So, do you want to... If you were listening, do you want to just kind of take over from where Anthony and I were?

Sure. I mean, yeah, I was talking to my son there. Oh, okay. Just trying to make sure that everything was working and everything on YouTube and whatnot. Sure. But if you could just kind of jump back where you were at.

Okay. So, basically, Anthony had talked about some axioms and basically he starts with God. And I said that basically I start with reality is real and my senses are reliable. And those are the two presuppositions that I start with.

And what I was about to say, when all of a sudden Anthony said, I can't hear you, is I don't... Like, I accept that as an apologist. Oh, and now Justin's gone. I accept this as an apologist that you might start with, well, God is real and that's fine.

I view that as an unjustified presupposition. Because you are appealing to an undemonstrated stance. Like, it's fine to say God is the standard, God is this. But I can say, you know, flubberber is the standard.

But until I demonstrate flubberber is real, it's just a thing I'm saying. And now you are not audible, Anthony. Okay. I'll... Anthony, just jump in when you're ready, brother.

So, Michael, there it is. I don't know. What's going on with the road?

I have no idea what's going on. Maybe this is a whole Facebook thing. Anybody who knows the RODECaster Pro knows that this thing is as easy to use as anything.

I didn't even touch it. I've been sitting here all the time, all the way over there. But I turned it off and on and it just flipped back on. So, I don't know. It's a good thing.

It's on your hands, Anthony. Yeah. It's a good thing that drills are not like... Do this number the whole time. Audio equipment. He's in drilling someone's teeth or something.

Okay. So, going back to the issue, here's the issue with the axioms is that you're starting with... And actually, it looks like Chuck just wrote this up there too. You're starting with yourself. And so, these are very arbitrary points in terms of where you're starting with.

And it's a viciously circular reasoning issue. So, we're not starting with ourselves with our axioms. We are saying God. And of course, as a Christian, we go even further because the God that exists is the same God that you know exists by his creation and things that have been made.

And so, we talked a little bit about that last week.

Yeah. But the problem with that is if that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And second, it's cool to state this God exists, but you are appealing to an undemonstrated standard. Okay.

Can you please demonstrate that this standard exists? In an objectively verifiable way that anyone can look at and get the same result as you?

Yeah. So, we've got to define some terms now. So, if you're talking about objectively verifiable, how do you objectively verify something in your worldview?

Well, that's interesting because if God is supernatural, then we're snookered from the get-go. But you're trapped in the same situation I am. Because you don't have any way to test the supernatural any more than I do or to confirm supernatural causation.

You just presuppose it. So, cool, but it doesn't get us anywhere. I start with reality. Like, you don't deny that reality is real, do you?

No, I don't deny that it's real.

And you accept that your senses are valid and reasonable and working, right?

Yeah, but for a different reason than you do. And that's the issue, right? You say it's axiomatic, but you are begging unto yourself who you would admit is... So, are you omniscient yourself? No, and I don't need to be.

Okay. So, if you're not omniscient yourself, there's things out there you don't know that could refute everything you think you know. No, no, that's not true. You're making axiomatic claims. You're making claims in such a manner.

Even in axioms, you're making claims. And doing so in a worldview that doesn't allow you to do this.

Because you... So, what of my two axioms can I not demonstrate?

Well, demonstrate is a problem because there's a lot of things we think we can demonstrate that turn out to be wrong, right? So, the science fields have been chock full of these examples over the years.

But you've already conceded reality is real. So, we can move past that one, right? And you've already conceded that our senses are reliable. So, I'm starting in a foundation where it actually works. And you're starting from a foundation that you do not have the capacity to demonstrate.

Again, so, we have to back up a little bit though, because you have a ton of assumptions in what you're saying. When you're saying objective, when you're making objective claims, right? And you're saying that there must be an objective way to test.

How are you doing this testing? No, so what I'm saying is that something where... And when I say objectively verifiable, because like you can say, well, like, I mean, I read the Bible, I prayed, I did whatever.

And it's just, it's so evident to me. So, what I'm asking for is an objective standard that anyone, that I can test and come to the same result as you. That's also an objective way of verification. And also, more importantly, falsification.

Because if you can't falsify it, there's a... Wolfgang Pauli, who's a theoretical physicist, he said an unfalsifiable claim isn't even wrong. Like, it doesn't even make it... Like, it's not even worth talking about.

So, there has to be a way to verify it. And there also has to be a way to falsify it. Do you have any capacity to objectively demonstrate that this thing that you are certain exists, actually exists in a way I can find out the same way?

Yes, by his creation. So, this is, again, we have to take a step back here. Sure. I don't accept this issue of something being falsifiable. This is what evolutionary scientists continue to use to try to say that evolution is impossible to falsify.

Therefore, it is a good theory.

I've never heard a single scientist say evolution is impossible to falsify.

Yeah, well, first of all... Can you give me a citation for that? Yeah, I would have to pull that up. So, if we have you on another week, I will. I had literally just pulled this up in a week or so.

Evolution is super easy to falsify. And in fact, like I think I mentioned last week, even Charles Darwin said this after the publication on the origin of species. And he said it rather tongue-in-cheek.

It's like, you know, what would prove your theory wrong? He said, fossilized rabbits in the Percambrian. All you have to do, all... It's the easiest thing in the world to do. All any creationist has to do is show one fossil in a section of strata where it doesn't belong, and evolution falls apart.

And I'll walk away from it that day.

Yeah, okay. So, here's the problem with this, is that if you back up even further, as I quoted in my book several times, Charles Darwin did give a test regarding the issue of fossils in terms of all the missing fossils that should have been there in the Precambrian layers.

So, he says that the fossil record should be teeming with these types of fossils. And that right now, we stand over 150 years later from the writing of his book, and we still don't have these fossils that connect from the Cambrian explosion from the base layer, which has virtually no fossils in it, and just a few cells in them.

So, we're missing the entire layers that he was saying, if we never find them, we have a problem. Now, but that's not been enough to falsify evolution for any secular scientist, even though their god in Charles Darwin wrote this in his book 150 plus years ago.

He's projecting a little bit, but yeah. I've never met a scientist that deifies another scientist. And I certainly don't deify anyone or anything,.

Maybe my wife. Well, I mean, you deify yourself though, because No, I don't. I completely don't. Well, okay. But see, in order to make the claims you're making about knowledge, when you admit that you can't know everything, that you don't know everything, but you're making

I didn't say that. You said I can't know everything. Okay, so is that one of your axioms now as well? That you are omniscient?

No, I never said that I was omniscient. But what you said was, is that I can't know anything and everything. Those were your words.

I know lots of stuff. Okay, are there things that you don't know?

Sure, there's lots of stuff I don't know. I can't sit here and explain general and special relativity to you. But that doesn't mean that they're, them leading to quantum mechanics still aren't the best explanation of how our universe works.

Right. So let me explain our side, right? Our side is that, because God, who himself is omniscient, he's all-knowing, there's nothing out there he doesn't know that can conflict or go against what he knows, right?

So God knows it all.

That undemonstrated thing, yeah.

Well, he knows it all. And he has chosen to reveal some of that truth to us and that we can know it for certain. That is the Christian worldview. The reason why I can stand here or sit here and make knowledge claims and be able to tell you things for certain is because I rest upon the one who is all-knowing.

You're making claims. Like what? Well, you've made everything you've said tonight.

Well, no, give me a specific claim that I'm making that you're about to say I can't back up. Okay, senses are reliable. How do you know that? They work. Are you suggesting your senses aren't reliable?

No, no, no. I'm saying in my worldview, I can account for them. And so can I. God, who is omniscient, made the hearing ear and the seeing eye.

Are you suggesting my senses aren't reliable?

I'm saying that your senses are only reliable because you're made in the image of God and you're not accounting for the fact that the only way you can account for them is by God, who you say doesn't exist.

No, what I'm saying is my senses are reliable, but I don't accept your unjustified presupposition. Right. How do you know they're reliable? Because they work.

Okay. And they continue to work. So you're using your senses in order to verify your senses. That's right. It's virtuously circular.

That's not virtuous. Sure it is. No. If you can claim God's virtuously circular, then I can claim my senses are.

I don't claim God is virtuously circular. It's a necessary starting point.

So it's your necessary starting point. Let me ask you a question, Michael. Have your senses ever been wrong? Have my senses been wrong? Which one? Any. I mean, have you ever not been able to recall details?

Have you ever... But those aren't my senses. That's my memory. Well, that's going to feed your senses. How do you know? Because how do you know your senses have always worked?

If you can't recall things. Well, I mean, I don't remember being born, but I'm pretty sure I was. And, you know, I mean, my first time I opened my eyes, I don't remember that. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.

But you were... And Anthony, you were going there, so I won't ask your question. I'll let you ask it. But you're relying on your senses. So this is... You brought up vicious versus, you know, the, you know, and I know you were...

Yeah. I know you've dealt with... You've had Sai on your show. I actually got to with him in person. So I know he brings that up a bunch. But it is a circular argument if you're relying on the very thing that you're trying to prove.

You're trying to prove your senses are reliable. And your answer is because they've been in the past. But yet, by that definition, people that come to different conclusions based on their senses, would that also be truth?

No, not necessarily. Because our senses... Like, we use our senses to interpret the world around us. So I can use my senses to interpret the world, and you can use your senses to interpret the world. And that's what I asked for before is going back, asking for something in a way to objectively verify so that your senses and my senses can see the same thing.

And I mean, I can hold up anything. Like, I can hold up a pen, and our senses will both see the same thing. So I'm saying is, like, how can this be such a big deal to demonstrate that this God exists somehow, you know, in a way that my senses can interpret?

If someone's blind, does that mean they can't have truth because their senses aren't working? No, not necessarily.

But in a situation like this, so I could come to where you are, and you could hold the pen, you could touch the pen, you could use the pen. So you would still have other senses. You could hear a piece of music, or you could hear someone's voice, or you could taste it, I guess, if you really wanted to, smell it.

So let me get... And this will be back to what we talked about last week, but I'm curious to know your answer. So someone who is born biologically a male, but identifies as a female, okay, our senses look at that person and recognize male.

Are they male?

Well, our senses can't see their genes and can't see their hormones.

Yeah, but we can see that they're male.

We can see physiological features. Well, biological features. Well, yeah, and as I said to you last week, you have mammary glands, and yet you're a male.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the support on those claims, where you said that the testicles are just uteruses on the inside. They're ovaries. They're ovaries, sorry. Show me that documentation, because I don't think I can find it.

It's the same cells, and because of the hormones from the XY chromosomes in males, it causes those cells that could proliferate into either ovaries or testes. It causes them to descend into testes. And for women, because they have XX, the hormones cause those cells to

You just said what I said.

Okay, but that's, okay, but that

You just said what I said. They start out as cells, and then they go this way or that way. You just said what I said.

But the problem is that your conclusion is different than the conclusion I'm bringing up biologically and scientifically. Your conclusion is that you're trying to mesh men and women together, and we're saying men and women are very distinct.

Actually, I'm not meshing them together. I don't necessarily think that that's fair. What I'm saying is that we start out like sperm and egg get together, and the stuff is in there to make male, and the stuff is in there to make female.

I don't know exactly when throughout the process when the hormone is triggered to go either way. But all of the stuff for testicles and ovaries and stuff like that are all in those together. They don't come from somewhere else.

So that is, like I said, you said what I said. It either develops one way or develops the other way.

Yeah, so let's do a biologic lesson for everybody on here today. Women have eggs. They all have the X chromosome only. Men have sperm. The sperm are either X or Y chromosome. The moment that the egg, which is X, meets up with the sperm that is X, they join together.

It's now fertilized as female. From the point of fertilization, it is female if it's an X and an X. And so therefore, what scientists are trying to say is the same cell going one to the other. In one way, they're correct.

It is the same initial cells that turn into ovaries or testes. The difference is that it's at the point of fertilization that when that X hits the other X, there is hormones and different chain reactions that occur that cause all the cells in the body, which are now all XX.

Every cell in the body is XX at that point until the blood starts to form, which doesn't carry the XY, nor do sperm and egg as we had talked about. It only has one or the other. But every other cell in the body is going to have XX from conception.

It's a female from conception. On the other side, if it's a Y sperm that hits the egg, it's a male at the moment of conception. And so from here on out, every cell will always be an XY. It'll always be male.

So the hormones, and again, the other chemical reactions, because of that is what causes those cells to change to one or the other. Men and women are completely and distinctly different in that way. And I know biologists have tried to mix and match some of this stuff because we go back to Haeckel's drawings, those fake drawings back in the day, where he was trying to claim that the early stage fertilization, if cats, bird, human, and if camera, what other animals all look the exact same, and that those cells end up developing to different things.

And that's supposed to be proof of evolution. First of all, Haeckel's drawings, if you know anything about them, were forged. Yeah, they were.

So what's interesting about this, and this is something that's really, really easily debunked, you can go back and you can, because there was this whole controversy about how Haeckel was, basically, he was lambasted by his university and all this other stuff, and nowhere, you won't find a historical record of anyone at his university actually calling him to task on what it is you're asserting.

So yes, the drawings are a forgery in that Haeckel never even drew them.

And this is too easily debunked. No, I agree that they are, except that they still end up in biology textbooks today. They're still there. And so something that was easily debunked is still there because, again, atheists know God exists, you know God exists, you know it by his creation, and that they will do everything

That's your assertion. Well, it's God's assertion, but they'll do everything they can to pretend God doesn't exist, including allowing drawings that we know to be fake, known to be fake for a very long time, to continue in textbooks today.